"NO BIKES" DIY Signs

Slater

If a public footpath cuts through a farm or farmer's field, does the farm owner have the right to put up a homemade sign that says "No BIKES".
If it is a public right of way - does the DIY sign have any authority.

There are a few of these signs where I live and I do obey them but I've often thought if there's no official sign from the council, what right does he have to make one.

gk141054

Legally I have no idea matey, but I suspect that the answer is that he can put up whatever signs he likes, but you don't have to obey them if it is a public right of way.

Could and probably am wrong though.

Slater

Answering my own question

From Wikipedia

"It is a civil wrong to ride a bicycle or a horse on a public footpath, and action could be taken by the landowner for trespass or nuisance by the user."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_ ... #Footpaths

bails87

Yeah, if it's a footpath then you shouldn't be riding on it. If it's a bridleway then carry on. Farmers/landowners have been known to put "Private Property" signs on public rights of way too, just because they don't want people on 'their' land.

Daz555

Slater wrote:

If a public footpath cuts through a farm or farmer's field, does the farm owner have the right to put up a homemade sign that says "No BIKES".
If it is a public right of way - does the DIY sign have any authority.

Sign matters not.

However, if it is a footpath, then bicycles are not permitted anyway.

alfablue

bails87 wrote:

Yeah, if it's a footpath then you shouldn't be riding on it. If it's a bridleway then carry on. Farmers/landowners have been known to put "Private Property" signs on public rights of way too, just because they don't want people on 'their' land.

They may be correct in saying it is private property, yet the right of way still exists. Some people have public footpaths through their gardens - they have to allow access.

In this case, as others have said, public footpath does indeed mean No Bikes, so the sign is merely reminding people of the law.

cgarossi

Check an OS map to see if theres a route that goes through his field. If there isn't then the sign means what it says. If you proceed he could prosecute you for damage to his land.

If theres a clear right of way thats appropriate for bikes then you will be fine so long as you stay on that route.

alfablue

cgarossi wrote:

Check an OS map to see if theres a route that goes through his field. If there isn't then the sign means what it says. If you proceed he could prosecute you for damage to his land.

If theres a clear right of way thats appropriate for bikes then you will be fine so long as you stay on that route.

If there is a public footpath through his land, then you can walk along it but not ride (or technically, not even push a bike, but I don't think that would be an issue for anyone).

To ride on it, it needs to be a bridleway, which people on foot, horseback or bike can use.

The two types of path are indicated by different pink lines on the map (dots and dashes), however the OS map may not be absolutely definitive.

On the ground, footpaths are usually indicated by small round signs with yellow arrows, bridleways with blue arrows.

blister pus

What I love is where footpath and bridleway merge for small sections of a route.

cgarossi

Yeah which is why I mentioned appropriate for bikes.

Technically you can go where you like but if the land owner asks you to leave then you must do so. You can only be prosecuted for tresspass if you don't comply with the land owners requests or if you cause damage to the land.

So the No Bikes sign would apply to his farm land which you must comply with in order to not be tresspassing. However if there is a bridleway that you can ride on you can do that legally.

thelawnet

cgarossi wrote:

Yeah which is why I mentioned appropriate for bikes.

Technically you can go where you like but if the land owner asks you to leave then you must do so. You can only be prosecuted for tresspass if you don't comply with the land owners requests or if you cause damage to the land.

Well technically you cannot go where you like - it is trespass. But as the only remedy would be to get an injunction to keep you off or to sue for any damage caused, there's not much the landowner can do about it.

alfablue

You cannot ride on footpaths regardless of whether it is private property.

cgarossi

You can only be prosecuted for tresspass if it can be proven that you willfully caused damage or ignored signs to keep out.

cgarossi

Have to appologise, I am actually wrong. So much for my sources...

A guide about trespass can be found here

http://www.naturenet.net/law/common.html#tres

Im not sure how up to date it is but I do know that trespass is a civil matter and it would be extremely hard to prosecute.

topsey_turvey

As I understand it, the only person who can prosecute you for trespass is the owner of the land allegedly trespassed upon. They must also prove that you have caused damage to their property ie:- the land that you have ridden on. Merely leaving tyre tracks is not considered damage. Breaking down gates/fences obviously is, but it would be even on a bridleway. AFAIK this is purely a civil matter, and whilst any landowner has the right to ask your name and address, they have no powers of arrest and cannot prevent you from carrying on your way. How much of an argument you want is, of course, purely down to you.

I cannot claim never to have ridden a footpath, and have been told off for doing so. But, if you are nice and friendly, and apologetic, you will get a much better attitude from the landowner. Apologise, say sorry, claim to be lost and most of all ask how is the best way to get off their land. Grovel, even if you don't mean it. Works wonders, and fosters good relations.

On no account put a sprint on to try and get away from them; that just f***s things up for everyone else.

dave_hill

cgarossi wrote:

Check an OS map to see if theres a route that goes through his field. If there isn't then the sign means what it says. If you proceed he could prosecute you for damage to his land.

If theres a clear right of way thats appropriate for bikes then you will be fine so long as you stay on that route.

Bear in mind -

- a public right of way marked on an OS map is NOT a guarantee that the right of way actually exists.
- a track on the ground is not automatically evidence of a public right of way.

Also -

- as Frank says, trespass is a civil offence, not a criminal offence. You cannot be prosecuted for a civil offence. Therefore the often-seen sign "Trespassers Will be Prosecuted" is an oxymoron.
- the burden of proof of any claim of trespass lies with the landowner. Not only do they have to prove that the alleged trespasser caused damage to their property, but also that they did so deliberately.

None of the above applies in Scotland because they're special.

tjwood

alfablue wrote:

You cannot ride on footpaths regardless of whether it is private property.

In fact, if it is private property, and you have the permission of the landowner, you can do whatever they let you ;-)

This applies on places like Forestry Commission land where there are relatively much fewer rights of way than there are permissive routes - paths/tracks that they say you can/cannot walk/ride a bike down...

MilitantGraham

alfablue wrote:

If there is a public footpath through his land, then you can walk along it but not ride (or technically, not even push a bike, but I don't think that would be an issue for anyone).

Don't just repeat myths as facts.

What law forbids a pedestrian to push a bicycle on a footpath ?

Si78

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php

Don't fall for the piffle that you have to carry a bicycle when on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: "In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."

Seems to be ok to push

dave_hill

You're confusing a pavement with a public footpath. The above judgement is clearly a test of road traffic law which different from the laws which govern public access to the countryside,

The law as regards public access allows that anyone using (i.e. walking) along a public footpath may have "reasonable accompaniments". I can't recall the exact case but it has been proved that for a pedestrian a bicycle pushed or carried cannot be classed as a "reasonable accompaniment", but a wheelchair or pushchair can.

Tank-slapper

dave_hill wrote:

Also -

- as Frank says, trespass is a civil offence, not a criminal offence. You cannot be prosecuted for a civil offence. Therefore the often-seen sign "Trespassers Will be Prosecuted" is an oxymoron.
- the burden of proof of any claim of trespass lies with the landowner. Not only do they have to prove that the alleged trespasser caused damage to their property, but also that they did so deliberately.

If there is a sign saying "trespassers will be prosecuted" and you ignore it, aren't you deliberately trespassing?

dave_hill

Tank-slapper wrote:

If there is a sign saying "trespassers will be prosecuted" and you ignore it, aren't you deliberately trespassing?

No, because -

1. You cannot be prosecuted for trespassing

2. To bring a case of trespass, the landowner must show that a) you have damaged their property, and b) you have done so deliberately.

If you break down a fence to gain access to private property, that's trespass.

If you walk (or ride) onto private property accidentally and you plead ignorance, that is not trespass.

If you walk (or ride) onto private property purposely and cause damage accidentally that is not trespass.

If you walk (or ride) onto private property purposely and cause damage purposely that is trespass.

But, in all cases, the landowner MUST prove that you have entered their property deliberately and caused damage deliberately (or gone equipped to cause damage, in which case it is constructive trespass).

Weirdly, if you are on a public right of way across private land which has been deliberately blocked (for example, by a fence or wall), you are legally entitled to try to get over that obstacle, but you cannot attempt to remove it, neither can you return later with the means to remove it. However, you can remove, or attempt to remove, a temporary obstruction (for example a fallen tree).

Si78

dave_hill wrote:

You're confusing a pavement with a public footpath. The above judgement is clearly a test of road traffic law which different from the laws which govern public access to the countryside,

The law as regards public access allows that anyone using (i.e. walking) along a public footpath may have "reasonable accompaniments". I can't recall the exact case but it has been proved that for a pedestrian a bicycle pushed or carried cannot be classed as a "reasonable accompaniment", but a wheelchair or pushchair can.

Not confused about anything. Was just pointing out that....

Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441)

Surely that would apply to any footpath, footway, cycle path etc?

All mind-numbingly boring stuff really... :roll:

Si78

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Trespass

Trespass to Land In modern law the word trespass is used most commonly to describe the intentional and wrongful invasion of another's real property. An action for trespass can be maintained by the owner or anyone else who has a lawful right to occupy the real property, such as the owner of an apartment building, a tenant, or a member of the tenant's family. The action can be maintained against anyone who interferes with the right of ownership or possession, whether the invasion is by a person or by something that a person has set in motion. For example, a hunter who enters fields where hunting is forbidden is a trespasser, and so is a company that throws rocks onto neighboring land when it is blasting.

Every unlawful entry onto another's property is trespass, even if no harm is done to the property. A person who has a right to come onto the land may become a trespasser by committing wrongful acts after entry. For example, a mail carrier has a privilege to walk up the sidewalk at a private home but is not entitled to go through the front door. A person who enters property with permission but stays after he has been told to leave also commits a trespass. Moreover, an intruder cannot defend himself in a trespass action by showing that the plaintiff did not have a completely valid legal right to the property. The reason for all of these rules is that the action of trespass exists to prevent breaches of the peace by protecting the quiet possession of real property.

In a trespass action, the plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant intended to trespass but only that she intended to do whatever caused the trespass. It is no excuse that the trespasser mistakenly believed that she was not doing wrong or that she did not understand the wrong. A child can be a trespasser, as can a person who thought that she was on her own land.

Injury to the property is not necessary for the defendant to be guilty of trespass, although the amount of damages awarded will generally reflect the extent of the harm done to the property. For example, a person could sue birdwatchers who intruded onto his land but would probably receive only nominal damages. A farmer who discovers several persons cutting down valuable hardwood trees for firewood could recover a more substantial amount in damages.

Trespassers are responsible for nearly all the consequences of their unlawful entry, including those that could not have been anticipated or are the result of nothing more wrongful than the trespass itself. For example, if a trespasser carefully lights a fire in the stove of a lake cabin and a fault in the stove causes the cabin to burn down, the trespasser can be held liable for the fire damage.

Courts have had to consider how far above and below the ground the right to possession of land extends. In United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court held the federal government liable for harm caused to a poultry business by low-altitude military flights. The Court concluded that because the airspace above land is like a public highway, ordinary airplane flights cannot commit trespass. In this case, however, the planes were flying below levels approved by federal law and regulations, so the government was held responsible. Its activity was a "taking" of private property, for which the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires just compensation.

It may be a trespass to tunnel or mine under another person's property, to force water or soil under the property, or to build a foundation that crosses under the boundary line. Underground encroachments are usually an exception to the rule that no harm needs to be shown in order to prove a trespass. Generally, trespass actions are permitted only where there is some damage to the surface or some interference with the owner's rights to use her property.

Not read it all cos it's far too boring...

tjwood

That's not English law, though you are probably right.
http://www.nelsonsonline.co.uk/nelsons/ ... 076BD34460

But the point is that while trespass is technically a breach of civil law, it's unlikely to actually get you in any trouble, and you can't be prosecuted for it. Most public rights of way only exist because people have been using them for years/decades/centuries and nobody has complained...

ji_

Si78 wrote:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Trespass



Not read it all cos it's far too boring...

As it is quoting USA supreme court rulings, I think this will not be applicable in the UK. The perils of random googlings by people who are not experts...!

Si78

ji_ wrote:

Si78 wrote:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Trespass



Not read it all cos it's far too boring...

As it is quoting USA supreme court rulings, I think this will not be applicable in the UK. The perils of random googlings by people who are not experts...!

Well, I apologise for not being an expert.

To be honest, even if I was a high court judge I'm sure there would be many nit-pickers on here who would try to prove me wrong.

Black is Black....."No, it's White" etc etc.

yawn.

Si78

http://www.trespasslaw.co.uk/

What Is Trespass?

Trespass in short is when an individual or their property enters the property of another without their consent or pre-existing agreement such as a right of way easement.

Hmmm, a UK site. I'm sure this will contain info about UK law.

OMG, it gives the same definition of trespass...What a shock....

To put it in more practical terms a trespass is walking, using, or making a disposition of your land without your permission. The trespasser is the individual who is performing the trespass or the owner of the item in trespass.

It is therefore the case that not only can an individual trespass by walking on your land, a vehicle may be in trespass if it sits upon your land; this is more commonly the issue with a trespass.

topsey_turvey

a vehicle may be in trespass if it sits upon your land; this is more commonly the issue with a trespass.

As defined by all the relative Acts of Parliament that govern such matters, a bicycle is not considered to be a vehicle.

Si78

Topsey Turvey wrote:

a vehicle may be in trespass if it sits upon your land; this is more commonly the issue with a trespass.

As defined by all the relative Acts of Parliament that govern such matters, a bicycle is not considered to be a vehicle.

Maybe not, but the person with the bike will still be trespassing.

Unless your bike moves, and travels onto someones land, by itself lol.

topsey_turvey

I defer to my right honourable barrack room lawyer.